The US doesn't directly control the internet. It has the authority to, but generally delegates that power to ICANN. Whether it's the US or the UN, direct control subject to government politics *would* be a disaster.
And I quote: "An offer to add insurance was offered, and initially I declined but then agreed after being told that otherwise if the product arrived and was non-functional I would be taking full risk. Before the product could be shipped I was asked to sign and fax a form, appended below, that indicated that if I wrote any negative feedback I would agree to have my credit card charged $100, and that I also agreed to waive my right to chargeback to the credit card company, and that product could not be returned for any reason. I signed and returned this form with the understanding that the company would send the item I ordered."
More accurately, ignore, deny, then embrace and extend. I talked to a Microsoft employee & Caltech graduate at Anime Expo 2005, who said that Microsoft's attitude towards RSS was that it was extremely flawed and would hurt the internet to promote.
But if I recall, he also said that Microsoft was watching RSS, and that its popularity might force MS's hand. It seems that after noticing and disliking RSS, it's finally getting around to using it -- but, of course, with no love for standards.
It's not really so evil as it is sinister -- Microsoft defines the standards because it is big, and Microsoft is big because it defines the standards. With the increasing usage of Firefox I hope we can break away from this vicious cycle. Besides, Microsoft "channels" (in IE 4 or 5 I think) were never any good, anyway.
They basically support evolution and attack intelligent design.
Now for some editorializing: Intelligent design is spawned from fundamentalist Protestants rebelling against logic and reason, and making a conscious decision not to think critically, deciding instead that there is science we cannot and will not understand no matter what. It is a rebellion against science, logical thought, and reality. You can be religious and have faith and still believe in the order of the universe, as ordained by god, and still be a good Christian. Darwinism doesn't mean you're a faithful atheist, or deny a metaphorical explanation of the Bible.
No, Slashdot is not a bunch of militant ideological fanatics -- that's only half of the picture. See, there are always compromises that can be made. If principles were to be very rigid, to the point of being solid beliefs, we would find it much harder to be wrong, and thus find it harder to learn, i.e. according to the scientific method. Unless you advocate beliefs on copyright to be defined permanently by the common groupthink at present, no, I think principles are far more fluid than what you're characterizing as a belief (rather than principles, which are much more easily bent). If principles applied to everything uniformly, the Universe would be a very simple place. Sometimes there's small complexities.
Personally, I think that buying something for personal use grants you a right to fair use, but perverting teaching materials towards an ideology to indoctrinate children with? Not so much.
Well, the US gov't is the nightmare of my choosing, since it does not get actively involved in ICANN and its operation. The UN, or rather the countries in whatever committee would govern ICANN, would add a layer of bureaucracy that would hamper ICANN's ability to do anything in addition to possibly leveraging control over DNS' operations. Rather than splittingcontrol of the DNS servers, why don't they just make their own national DNS system and ask other countries to uphold them in their servers? As far as I know, such a peer-based system is certainly feasible, and certainly much closer to the UN's ideals of respecting national sovereignty.
But the ICANN *DOES* take international input, and is mostly independent of our government, anyway. What's your point? I think that if it comes down to it, the US is more trustworthy and effective than a international committee, despite my support of the UN in other aspects.
Make a second pile of 18 coins, and flip them all over. You take c heads, and 18-c tails for this second pile. the original pile now has 100-18 coins, of which 18-c coins are heads. Flip all of the second pile over, and now it has 18-c heads, rather than tails.
Judging from the picture on their site, I remember seeing this in a NewScientist issue. I don't think it's a hoax, or if it *is* one then they've done a very good job at making all appearances seem otherwise. As for the glowing joints...what? A (potentially) good product with a good designer? Only Apple does that!
see here. If Java runs within.NET, and Java doesn't run.NET, which do you think would be more useful?
Re:What sort of "original" game do you propose?
on
Ask Sid Meier
·
· Score: 1
* Civilization vs. Tie Fighter - "Imperial Civilization": Carefully establish imperial control across the galaxy from aboard your starship, as you subvert rebel partisan factions, dominate technology, and crush any newly developed forms of government
Star Wars Rebellion. 'Nuff said. It actually wasn't too bad of a game, though it could have been better.
Actually, it does none of that for me. It sounds like you're the one with limited experience on Windows. Try revising your approach, as it appears to be hypocritical.
"(1)
Blizzard's software end-user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable contracts; (2) Appellants waived any "fair use" defense; (3) the agreements did not
constitute misuse of copyright; and (4) Appellants violated the anti-circumvention
and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA")."
Enforcable EULAs, sacrifice of fair use...I shake my head in disgust. Law and justice just aren't keeping up with the times.
more elitism. People like me? You mean the average power user who would rather download and watch than pay too much for something that's difficult to play? What the hell? Wake up. There are millions upon millions of people like me worldwide. And we are the corporations' creation -- they've made a cathedral while we stay in the bazaar.
Oh yeah. I'm typing this from a properly bought iMac G5 (and it hasn't pulled any stupid shit on me yet), and on another computer I run Linux. All computers run Firefox, and have plenty of OSS software installed. Tell me I'm not supporting OSS by running it where it's appropriate for my life. Tell me.
Bullshit. I've only ever burnt one DVD for someone. I occasionally send good songs to people, but never en masse and never to people I don't know -- heck, never to anyone who isn't a friend. I'm not a pirate, and I don't want to be seen as such. And no, giving out one DVD doesn't make me a pirate; people have been doing it ever since the cassette recorder and VCR, and it's increased demand, if anything.
And I don't recall Best Buy ever getting paid to provide me with security. They were paid to give me a product i could pop in and just watch. BTW, I do own content. Tell my Region 1 player it can play my legally owned Region 2 DVDs from Japan. I'm sure it'll play my LEGALLY OWNED DVDs.
When it's practical for me to do so, I will buy content. And occasionally, there is content that I want enough that practicality isn't a concern. But I don't care if ripping my own DVDs to be able to watch them and decoding the CSS isn't legal. If they want to make it that hard for me to watch my own stuff, then I'd rather have something free and easy to watch than something I have to pay for with time, money, and frustration in order to enjoy. Music and movies no longer enjoy captive audiences, and until the *AAs stop trying to imprision their customers, I'm content with doing whatever the hell I want with what they make.
You just think that. Unlike you, I prefer to own what I buy and exercise fair use, rather than pay someone to give me permission. No, in fact, this is where it sorts out those who support the freedom of open platforms (but not of their paid content) from those who support their own freedom to do what they damn well like.
Get off your high horse. Some people simply want to listen to their pop idols or certain songs. What do they do then? Pay someone with unoriginal songs whose style is directly copied? Who the hell would support that?
Yes, I download. I also use the iTMS to buy music and use jHymn to strip the DRM. I've bought more than a few songs that I already had on mp3 just for quality, or just because I liked the artist -- introduced to me, no less, by a friend with a mp3. Not to mention that, after hearing some SoaD. I bought the 3 System of a Down CDs out at the time, then ripped them for my own use.
Yes, I pirate Microsoft apps. I have two licenses for XP home (OEM) and one for Pro, and I run XP corp'ed on 2 computers. Technically I'm violating the license, but money has been paid, and screw MS's policy. I disagree with their "terms and conditions", but (since XPSP2)like their software. And I do believe in free/open software, but does that mean that I can't use what works?
I'll take whatever moral position I damn well want to, and you won't stop me. You're a troll on a high horse.
No, breaking the law because it's unjust has been the basis of radical changes in the past. For the most part, people who abide by laws despite disliking some of them get to put up with more of them rather than demonstrate tangibly to politicians their hatred for whatever law.
I'd make the argument that it's perfectly justified to break an unjust law, and fight for it to be changed. You do it at your own risk, however, because others might disagree, and those people might be in court with you if you're brought up on charges.
Slashdot Mirror
The US doesn't directly control the internet. It has the authority to, but generally delegates that power to ICANN. Whether it's the US or the UN, direct control subject to government politics *would* be a disaster.
And I quote: "An offer to add insurance was offered, and initially I
declined but then agreed after being told that otherwise if the product
arrived and was non-functional I would be taking full risk. Before the
product could be shipped I was asked to sign and fax a form, appended
below, that indicated that if I wrote any negative feedback I would agree
to have my credit card charged $100, and that I also agreed to waive my
right to chargeback to the credit card company, and that product could not
be returned for any reason. I signed and returned this form with the
understanding that the company would send the item I ordered."
The gameboy's screen was wider than it was tall.
Support and Quality Control. 'nuff said.
More accurately, ignore, deny, then embrace and extend. I talked to a Microsoft employee & Caltech graduate at Anime Expo 2005, who said that Microsoft's attitude towards RSS was that it was extremely flawed and would hurt the internet to promote.
But if I recall, he also said that Microsoft was watching RSS, and that its popularity might force MS's hand. It seems that after noticing and disliking RSS, it's finally getting around to using it -- but, of course, with no love for standards.
It's not really so evil as it is sinister -- Microsoft defines the standards because it is big, and Microsoft is big because it defines the standards. With the increasing usage of Firefox I hope we can break away from this vicious cycle. Besides, Microsoft "channels" (in IE 4 or 5 I think) were never any good, anyway.
It's official (if you know italian, the press release is on the Vatican web site): http://news.google.com/news?q=cardinal+paul+poupar d
They basically support evolution and attack intelligent design.
Now for some editorializing: Intelligent design is spawned from fundamentalist Protestants rebelling against logic and reason, and making a conscious decision not to think critically, deciding instead that there is science we cannot and will not understand no matter what. It is a rebellion against science, logical thought, and reality. You can be religious and have faith and still believe in the order of the universe, as ordained by god, and still be a good Christian. Darwinism doesn't mean you're a faithful atheist, or deny a metaphorical explanation of the Bible.
No, Slashdot is not a bunch of militant ideological fanatics -- that's only half of the picture. See, there are always compromises that can be made. If principles were to be very rigid, to the point of being solid beliefs, we would find it much harder to be wrong, and thus find it harder to learn, i.e. according to the scientific method. Unless you advocate beliefs on copyright to be defined permanently by the common groupthink at present, no, I think principles are far more fluid than what you're characterizing as a belief (rather than principles, which are much more easily bent). If principles applied to everything uniformly, the Universe would be a very simple place. Sometimes there's small complexities.
Personally, I think that buying something for personal use grants you a right to fair use, but perverting teaching materials towards an ideology to indoctrinate children with? Not so much.
Well, the US gov't is the nightmare of my choosing, since it does not get actively involved in ICANN and its operation. The UN, or rather the countries in whatever committee would govern ICANN, would add a layer of bureaucracy that would hamper ICANN's ability to do anything in addition to possibly leveraging control over DNS' operations. Rather than splittingcontrol of the DNS servers, why don't they just make their own national DNS system and ask other countries to uphold them in their servers? As far as I know, such a peer-based system is certainly feasible, and certainly much closer to the UN's ideals of respecting national sovereignty.
But the ICANN *DOES* take international input, and is mostly independent of our government, anyway. What's your point? I think that if it comes down to it, the US is more trustworthy and effective than a international committee, despite my support of the UN in other aspects.
Make a second pile of 18 coins, and flip them all over. You take c heads, and 18-c tails for this second pile. the original pile now has 100-18 coins, of which 18-c coins are heads. Flip all of the second pile over, and now it has 18-c heads, rather than tails.
You heard it here. viPod > eMacs.
Judging from the picture on their site, I remember seeing this in a NewScientist issue. I don't think it's a hoax, or if it *is* one then they've done a very good job at making all appearances seem otherwise. As for the glowing joints...what? A (potentially) good product with a good designer? Only Apple does that!
see here. If Java runs within .NET, and Java doesn't run .NET, which do you think would be more useful?
* Civilization vs. Tie Fighter - "Imperial Civilization": Carefully establish imperial control across the galaxy from aboard your starship, as you subvert rebel partisan factions, dominate technology, and crush any newly developed forms of government
Star Wars Rebellion. 'Nuff said. It actually wasn't too bad of a game, though it could have been better.
Actually, it does none of that for me. It sounds like you're the one with limited experience on Windows. Try revising your approach, as it appears to be hypocritical.
"(1) Blizzard's software end-user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable contracts; (2) Appellants waived any "fair use" defense; (3) the agreements did not constitute misuse of copyright; and (4) Appellants violated the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA")."
Enforcable EULAs, sacrifice of fair use...I shake my head in disgust. Law and justice just aren't keeping up with the times.
The answer should be simple: money, complications, and power requirements. Why waste the probe's lifetime moving when it can test instead?
Yes, all the adults have left. That is to say, the people who aren't stupid enough to blame it on Bush probably don't post.
They kept charging my family's account for several years after our cancellation, even after we moved. Filthy bastards.
more elitism. People like me? You mean the average power user who would rather download and watch than pay too much for something that's difficult to play? What the hell? Wake up. There are millions upon millions of people like me worldwide. And we are the corporations' creation -- they've made a cathedral while we stay in the bazaar.
Oh yeah. I'm typing this from a properly bought iMac G5 (and it hasn't pulled any stupid shit on me yet), and on another computer I run Linux. All computers run Firefox, and have plenty of OSS software installed. Tell me I'm not supporting OSS by running it where it's appropriate for my life. Tell me.
Bullshit. I've only ever burnt one DVD for someone. I occasionally send good songs to people, but never en masse and never to people I don't know -- heck, never to anyone who isn't a friend. I'm not a pirate, and I don't want to be seen as such. And no, giving out one DVD doesn't make me a pirate; people have been doing it ever since the cassette recorder and VCR, and it's increased demand, if anything.
And I don't recall Best Buy ever getting paid to provide me with security. They were paid to give me a product i could pop in and just watch. BTW, I do own content. Tell my Region 1 player it can play my legally owned Region 2 DVDs from Japan. I'm sure it'll play my LEGALLY OWNED DVDs.
When it's practical for me to do so, I will buy content. And occasionally, there is content that I want enough that practicality isn't a concern. But I don't care if ripping my own DVDs to be able to watch them and decoding the CSS isn't legal. If they want to make it that hard for me to watch my own stuff, then I'd rather have something free and easy to watch than something I have to pay for with time, money, and frustration in order to enjoy. Music and movies no longer enjoy captive audiences, and until the *AAs stop trying to imprision their customers, I'm content with doing whatever the hell I want with what they make.
You just think that. Unlike you, I prefer to own what I buy and exercise fair use, rather than pay someone to give me permission. No, in fact, this is where it sorts out those who support the freedom of open platforms (but not of their paid content) from those who support their own freedom to do what they damn well like.
Get off your high horse. Some people simply want to listen to their pop idols or certain songs. What do they do then? Pay someone with unoriginal songs whose style is directly copied? Who the hell would support that?
Yes, I download. I also use the iTMS to buy music and use jHymn to strip the DRM. I've bought more than a few songs that I already had on mp3 just for quality, or just because I liked the artist -- introduced to me, no less, by a friend with a mp3. Not to mention that, after hearing some SoaD. I bought the 3 System of a Down CDs out at the time, then ripped them for my own use.
Yes, I pirate Microsoft apps. I have two licenses for XP home (OEM) and one for Pro, and I run XP corp'ed on 2 computers. Technically I'm violating the license, but money has been paid, and screw MS's policy. I disagree with their "terms and conditions", but (since XPSP2)like their software. And I do believe in free/open software, but does that mean that I can't use what works?
I'll take whatever moral position I damn well want to, and you won't stop me. You're a troll on a high horse.
No, breaking the law because it's unjust has been the basis of radical changes in the past. For the most part, people who abide by laws despite disliking some of them get to put up with more of them rather than demonstrate tangibly to politicians their hatred for whatever law.
I'd make the argument that it's perfectly justified to break an unjust law, and fight for it to be changed. You do it at your own risk, however, because others might disagree, and those people might be in court with you if you're brought up on charges.
By any chance, do you have the air speed velocity of that?
Or an expression?